Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

As reported by the San Jose Mercury News, the state of California is "in the throes of a whooping cough epidemic, state health department officials announced Friday. Dr. Ron Chapman, director of the California Department of Public Health, said 3,458 cases of whooping cough have been reported since Jan. 1 -- including 800 in the past two weeks. That total is more than all the cases reported in 2013." Public broadcaster KPBS notes that of the 621 people known to have come down with whooping cough in San Diego county, the vast majority (85 percent) were up to date on their immunizations.

Yes, they ignore the fact that those un-immunized 15% gave a nice reservoir for the illness to mutate and develop stronger strains, like illnesses do. And lets not bring in the fact that most Americans have piss poor immune systems to begin with, and the shots just make one facet stronger, not invincible.

Maybe you could site a reference, other than your body's exit point for your food. When one is immunized, one can handle the real thing quickly. That means the sickness cannot take hold, or not for long. There is a group of dumb ass American parents that believe that immunizing their children is a bad thing. These parents will face outcomes like child mortality, and child cripplings for the unlucky. The immunized children will not understand that their close friend is forever negatively altered because their friend's parents are so short sighted that because they don't see it, therefore it doesn't exist.

This idea is applicable to other things. Short Sigtedness paralleled with business shows rapid depletion of its resources in exchange for an increase in profit; like a child that has more free time because it doesn't have to wait in line for a vaccine shot. Then when the resources run out, the business colapses; the outcome is the abandonment of its employees, and its customers; now the community is damaged, also the death of the business. The survivers must now spend time, money, and resources that they would not have to before; the impact cripples.

When one is immunized, one can handle the real thing quickly. That means the sickness cannot take hold, or not for long.

Unfortunately that appears [informahealthcare.com] to be no longer be as true for whooping cough as it used to be: the currently circulating strains have diverged from the strains that were used to develop the vaccine, so protection is worse than it used to be.

It doesn't sound to me like the grandparent was an antivaxxer. The rather unkind things they said about Jenny McCarthy should stand as a pretty strong argument that he (she?) isn't.

But it's true: vaccines are not perfect. They give a big boost, and they can help a lot of people, but the fact is that some of their effectiveness really does depend on having very high participation: herd immunity helps the immunized almost as much as it helps the un-immunized. Which only makes it more of a travesty that the an

Maybe you could site a reference, other than your body's exit point for your food. When one is immunized, one can handle the real thing quickly. That means the sickness cannot take hold, or not for long.

Unfortunately - that's not entirely true [cdc.gov], immunization against whooping cough is only partially effective. Worse yet, the effectiveness also fades over time. Even worse.... there's a possibility [sciencemag.org] that the vaccine may not stop an uninfected person from being a carrier.

I don't see why the illness should mutate more where it encounters less resistance, that is in the not immunized hosts.But OK, somebody will sure have studies on this, and hopefully they have been independently confirmed.

Still it is the opposite phenomenon of what happens in hospitals: pathogens that manage to survive there become way difficult to remove. I also wonder what Darwin would have thought of less selective pressure leading to more mutations.

You know, if vaccination is wrong, then it's wrong in a really right way. Let's put theory to a rest for a moment and ponder reality. Some diseases vanished entirely. Others have been pushed back considerably. All just due to a better sanitary situation? Certainly that is a factor too. But not sufficient to explain everything. Take tetanus. It's a fairly well understood disease, mostly because it used to be very troublesome before we understood it fully. And all cases of tetanus since WW2, at least, have been in people who were not vaccinated against it, despite the bacterium responsible for tetanus still being pretty much ubiquitous (it's fairly impossible to eliminate it from our life).

Perhaps they can't afford it? Immunizations used to be dirt cheap but these days, not so much.

The DTaP vaccine is available free of charge through state health departments particularly to low-income families and to those without without health insurance; in addition, many private doctors participate in the Vaccines for children [cdc.gov] program.

Even if it's not free the price [cdc.gov] is not particularly high; basically $50/dose for immunization against Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, and Polio; add another $60/dose for MMR.

I'm 59, and I qualified just for breathing. Here in enlightened Montana the county runs an RV around to all the little rural burgs and vaccinates anyone they can corner, at no charge, with everything they have on hand. Last year I got pertussis (combo, don't recall all that was in it), tetanus, flu, and pneumonia vacs (all on the same day -- and lived!) The only reason they didn't offer shingles vac is because it needs to be kept frozen and they weren't equipped for that.

Ugh, I'm with you on this one. I'm allergic as well, and I have respiratory issues as-is. Just found out I'm allergic to codeine, too, this week...(I've taken it before, never had issues, but I took it this week and it did quite a number on my stomach. The next day I had been talking to my mother and said I was taking codeine and she said "You need to watch that, your aunt and uncle can't take it as it gave them severe stomach issues."

There are at least two things you wrote which are generally medically incorrect. First of all, having only a stomach ache after ingesting a drug is very unlikely to be an allergy. True (IgE/T-cell-mediated) allergies usually cause things like hives, throat/lip/face swelling, low blood pressure, and trouble breathing. You simply describe a very well known NON-ALLERGIC adverse effect common to all opioids. True allergies are generally not heritable either, so the "my relative was allergic to X, so I can't take it" is nonsense. Your aunt and uncle simply had the same very common NON-ALLERGIC adverse effect you did. The exception to this is in people who have things like celiac disease who have a T-cell-mediated response to gluten in the medication which is an allergy. But you'd have a telltale set of symptoms involving more than just nausea if that was indeed the case for you.
The only reason I mention this is because many people say they're "allergic" to vaccinations for similar nonsense reasons. A moderate fever and redness/aching at the injection site is a known adverse effect due to how vaccines work. You have symptoms of an immune response because you have to elicit an immune response for vaccines to work.

Good advice. An even bigger problem is when people report allergies to antibiotics that they aren't really allergic to (granted, doctors who are afraid of being sued and don't bother to confirm this don't help). If you report 10 antibiotic allergies to the doctor and end up in the hospital with sepsis for some reason, you may very well die from it. They're going to treat you with antibiotics that are rarely used because they don't work well and have nasty side-effects that will hit you hard while you're

WRT narcotics, there's always one that works, one that doesn't, and one that makes you vomit. You just found the one that makes you vomit. Codeine works for me, vicodan doesn't. I'm going to assume percocet makes me vomit.

As a useful tip: If you're allergic to codeine and you need pain medication ask for tramadol/acetaminophen. If that doesn't do it, ask for straight ultram. Fair warning though, it does dump serotonin, as such taking it for a long time you'll go through hellish withdrawal symptoms.

That's okay. Thanks to herd immunity, so long as there aren't too many people avoiding vaccinations, you should still be able to enjoy all the benefits of immunity. In fact, you, more than most people, should have good reason to support vaccinations and encourage others to get them, given that a significant risk to your health is directly related to the vaccination rate of those around you. Herd immunity can generally support a small population that isn't immunized, such as yourself. The problems begin when

There are precisely two viruses like this that have been "eradicated" by medicine, in the entire history of humankind. Two.

And one of those is suspected of making a comeback in a related form.

"Immunisation" buys you time, not immunity. We can't get 100% of people to pay taxes or abide by the law, what makes you think we can get 100% immunised?

Like using one particular chemical in weedkiller or rat poison - doesn't matter how many rats you kill, one will get immune to it and breed a generation immune to it really quickly, or a branch of the same genetic family will evolve to take it over. Even if you legislate (as some countries do) that you MUST use 2 or 3 totally unrelated chemicals at all times and never deploy them singly - still there are rats. And still there will be diseases getting through that are related to those you immunise.

Hell, we offer flu shots to the elderly for free in my country - hasn't even dented flu-like diseases. Immunisation helps. Blaming those percent that choose to decide what they put into their own bodies is just peer pressure and bullying. And, guess what, if you were actually "immunised" you wouldn't be able to catch it from them, or the evolved strains...

The biggest issue with the flu is that there are so many strains of it (it mutates quite easily). Your flu vaccination is for the one strain which is believed to be the most common one for that particular year. Unfortunately they could have guessed wrong as to which strain will be the most common or you could just as easily pick up some other strain.

As for immunisation protecting you from evolved strains, what happens when that one little mutation is a change in the protein coating which makes your immunity a moot point? Vaccines work by giving you a dead or harmless version of the virus so that your immune system knows what it is and that it should react to it. One of the ways this is done is via the protein coating of the virus. If that changes enough then the immune system no longer recognises the virus as being one it has encountered already. Tying back into the flu virus, it mutates quite easily and more often then not the protein coatings change, hence why the flu vaccine does not always stop you from getting the flu.

It is the ease that viruses mutate that makes getting as many people as possible vaccinated important. The fewer hosts a virus can infect mean the less likely hood of the virus getting to mutate.

As for your comment on only 2 viruses being eradicated via vaccinations, how many people do you know or have heard of catching stuff like german measles, rubella, smallpox, pertussis, tuberculosis, mumps, etc? And how many of those live in countries where vaccination is readily available (eg, most non-thirdworld nations). Myself, I don't know anyone who has had any of these diseases outside of outbreaks in the UK and the USA due mostly to the anti-vaccination crowd...

Blaming those percent that choose to decide what they put into their own bodies is just peer pressure and bullying. And, guess what, if you were actually "immunised" you wouldn't be able to catch it from them, or the evolved strains...

So, only the stupid and superstitious people who refuse to get vacinated will get sick and hopefully die and clean up the gene pool?

There are precisely two viruses like this that have been "eradicated" by medicine, in the entire history of humankind. Two.

No, they have not been eradicated.

1. One lives in labs2. The other one is still in wild because of fucked up Islamists.

Aside from that, your comment is stupid. You do not require 100% immunization to eradicate a disease. You only require good enough level of immunization. And comparing this to some specific strain flu vaccine, really? Flu vaccine has nowhere the same effectiveness as polio vaccine.

You do not require 100% immunization to eradicate a disease. You only require good enough level of immunization.

This is true. However, that doesn't imply vaccination.

1: A disease can be eradicated from overexposure. If nearly everyone has caught it and developed active immunity, no one will be around to catch it. This is the same way inoculation works.However, this doesn't work well for diseases with rapid mutation rates, ability to jump species, or virus forms that can survive for long periods of time. And again, that's the same whether the immunity was acquired through a vaccine or by having had the disease.

Thanks to people who oppose vaccinations. Boy, I love it when stupidity is used to justify itself. Criticizing that is like looking at the state of the chicken pox vaccine (you remember chicken pox right?) and saying 'Anti-vaxxers' kids still get it, therefore the vaccine is bad because it doesn't work if you don't use it!'

There are many reasons the flu vaccine "doesn't work", for the most part, because it's only around 80% effective to begin with. They also target specific strains that they think will be the most common in a given region. They do not target every strain of the flu out there.

So yes, 80% effective, only targeting key specific seasonal strains they think will cause the most havoc.

But, at the end of the day, it's a gamble. Do you want to take your life or the lives of loved ones at such risk? I don't get a flu vaccine, in part because I haven't had the flu in a long, long time (Colds and I, however, have problems). Also because I'm not around little kids or super elderly folks, and don't work in a hospital/doctor's office, etc. But it's a choice I make. If I were to get the flu more often, I'd probably get vaccinated.

There are many reasons the flu vaccine "doesn't work", for the most part, because it's only around 80% effective to begin with. They also target specific strains that they think will be the most common in a given region. They do not target every strain of the flu out there.

Not quite. The 80% effective rate is only when the correct strain is targeted by the vaccine. And that's only about 33% of the time. That means the overall effective rate for any given year is actually around 16%.

There have even been studies of the H1N1 vaccine in Canada that showed that the people that received the vaccine were slightly more likely to become infected.

If it were for me, you can die as a life choice. Any medication has tradeoffs. You have to decide what is more important at the time. Getting rid of a flu or having an upset stomach.
If immunization were so bad, how come we overcome all those illnesses that caused trouble for our civilization pre 20th century? Before, babies and teens did not survive into adulthood. Some died on some illnesses that we since overcome.
But i see. Overconfidence is key here. Science is just bad. But maybe its time that people

If it was just for him, I'd be cheerleader for the vaccine-naysayers. Darwin should be right at least sometimes and all that.

But sadly it's not just about him. There are people who cannot get immunized, who cannot get vaccines, for various reasons. Very real reasons, unlike that anti-vac crowd. Some people would love to get vaccinated because they do not want to get sick. But simply cannot. For them, we "vaccinated ones" are the protective shield. Because if there is no strain to infect them (because we don't carry it around since our vaccinated immune system kills them), we effectively protect them.

I would not have believed there's someone left who'd think vaccinations are snakeoil anymore.

But hey, I learned that in the US there are even people who really think a wizard made the universe, so why should it surprise me? There's even people who claim that AIDS ain't caused by a virus but... I forgot, I was too busy laughing to listen to the bull.

The 'flu shots' are one of the best proofs of the total and utter fraud of 'vaccination', since they simply DON'T WORK, and figures from hundreds of thousands of sufferers of the flu prove this.

Congratulations on your complete failure to understand influenza.

Flu shots "don't work" because influenza is such a simple organism. Most big organisms (pretty much anything you can see with the naked eye) have mechanisms to protect their DNA from changing too much. Cells that mutate are killed off, and offspring that mutate too much can't grow. That's why it takes thousands of years for even small changes. The benefit, of course, is that once such an organism thrives, it stays that way. There are practically no single-individual species out there (some exceptions apply [wikipedia.org]).

Influenza completely lacks those mechanisms. It is free to mutate rapidly, often leading to significant differences in only a few years. Part of those significant differences are the proteins exposed to the body's immune system, so the particular strain of virus that was most aggressive one year may give way to a completely different strain for the next winter season (when human immune systems are at their weakest).

To produce a flu shot each year, researchers track the incidence rates of many different strains, and the ones that seem most troublesome for the coming year are what the vaccine protects against. There is a balance that must be struck between providing enough material for the body to develop immunity, and providing too much material, such that the person actually gets sick.

Flu shots, therefore, are not an absolute shield against the diverse array of viruses we call "influenza".

This whole article PROVES that 'vaccination' is a massive fraud

No, it only provides still more evidence that vaccines work exactly as we expect them to. There is only a good chance that a person will develop an immunity from a vaccine, and only a good chance that an immunity will protect them from the actual pathogen, so we hope to also give them a good chance to never encounter the pathogen in the first place. Skipping vaccinations increases the likelihood that you will be a safe harbor for the pathogen, greatly increasing the chances of exposure for someone whose immunity is ineffective or not even present.

It is a lot more nuanced than that. There are vaccinations that work quite well. Rabies, tetanus, smallpox, and polio are examples. Flu vaccines do not work well due to our inability to predict which flu will be prevalent in a given year with accuracy (in other words, we keep vaccinating for the wrong thing).

Some such as chicken pox are questionable. They work for a time, but there is a real risk that over a lifetime, the risks are higher with it than without since the disease is a lot worse if contracted a

He just got done explaining how vaccinations don't always take, so some percentage of vaccinated individuals are still susceptible to the pathogen, meaning that those people unknowingly depend on the successful vaccinations of those around them to protect them. Did you really just skip right by that?

Immunity is collective, as the effective protection implied by the term is only feasible if a large majority of the population participates. That choice to participate or not is personal, but the cost of not participating is also collective, as one layer of defense is lost for the whole population. The result is exactly what you see here: a greatly increased chance of exposure for everyone, and a chance at an epidemic.

We have found a vaccine that is not 100% perfect. So we need to throw away vaccination altogether!

Great, I found a reason do dump religion on the compost heap. I prayed for chocolate fudge yesterday and there was none for dinner in the cafeteria. So religion doesn't work. Anyone wanna come along burning down churches?

From your link: "cowpox bears no analogy to smallpox." Cowpox and smallpox viruses are very similar, assigned to the same viral genus. We have sequenced the entire genome of each and their close relationship is undeniable. Here's an article for exampleAnalysis of the complete genome of smallpox variola major virus strain Bangladesh-1975 [nih.gov]. From the abstract: "Most of the virus proteins correspond to proteins in current databases, including 150 proteins that have > 90% identity to major gene products e

All that's true, but to be fair, lifestyle changes can substantially increase life expectancy. There's a bunch of parasites you can get from being in contact with soil. You can get exposed to things which will help build your immune system as well, but maybe one day we'll all get fecal transplants (hopefully a next-generation version, just a pill suppository perhaps which achieves the same thing) on a schedule like we do vaccinations.

Yes, but it was due to the fact that governments world around said that it was "dangerous to go outside because of x,y,z" my favorite being sunlight here in Canada when the ozone hole was shit. The other being a,b,c including "stranger danger" and "fear of invisible people."

The US have one of the highest rates of antibiotics (ab)use. I'd be surprised if you found worse strains of germs in our hospitals than you find in the average US hotel air condition.

It's not so much an issue of them not being in the hotel air as them not being trivial to find. But as it turns out, they're all over the hospitals, which are typically nowhere near as sanitary as they're alleged to be, mostly by health care professionals. Basically nothing in the typical hospital aside from some of the purpose-built equipment can actually be properly cleaned for the variety and load of contaminants which pass through it.

I'm guessing you've never been out of the US then, otherwise you'd know that the vast majority of "AB resistant diseases" are mainly from the 3rd world, or developing countries where people simply stop taking it. First cases of AB resistant TB? India, sexually transmitted? 3rd world, and so on. In Canada we had a standing policy for EMS, fire and police that "likely 3rd and developing immigrants" who may be infectious, you are to drive with the windows down on the vehicle. This was during the first wave

I'm guessing you've never been out of the US then, otherwise you'd know that the vast majority of "AB resistant diseases" are mainly from the 3rd world, or developing countries where people simply stop taking it.

With that, you were attempting to dismiss the GP's assertion that "the US have one of the highest rates of antibiotics (ab)use." He's actually correct, and you've missed the mark with your reply. Please reference my other reply on this subject [slashdot.org].

The problem with hospitals is it being such a sterile environment, it makes a prefect breeding ground for aggressive strains when there are no other bacteria or virii to keep them in check.

Hospitals are anything but sterile environments, but the reasons for cross infection can be complex. Please review the following resources:

Having had had family members with whooping cough I looked into this. Adults are believed to be carrier's with silent symptoms. This year (2014) when adults get their physical they will very likely be offered an immunization for whooping cough. I just got mine since I was exposed to it. Although vaccines after the fact may not be useful for protection, the wisdom apparently is that the vaccine helps your body supress the silent infection. Not sure I understand why.

Having had had family members with whooping cough I looked into this. Adults are believed to be carrier's with silent symptoms. This year (2014) when adults get their physical they will very likely be offered an immunization for whooping cough. I just got mine since I was exposed to it. Although vaccines after the fact may not be useful for protection, the wisdom apparently is that the vaccine helps your body supress the silent infection. Not sure I understand why.

This. The immunity imparted by the pertussis vaccine was not as long lived as previously thought. Combine that with a larger community of unvaccinated children (some due to medical reasons but many due to parents choosing not to) and we get a resurgence of whooping cough. This problem has been know and building for quite a while now but the other problem is that adults tend to not keep up on their tetanus boosters. I know back in 2007 when I got my last booster they had already started giving adults Tdap (Tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis), as opposed to the Td vaccine that used to be the norm for adults.

The "ap" part of "Tdap" stands for "acellular pertussis", not just "and pertussis". The acellular variant of the vaccine has fewer side-effects, but also provides less protection, and less long lasting protection.

The "ap" part of "Tdap" stands for "acellular pertussis", not just "and pertussis". The acellular variant of the vaccine has fewer side-effects, but also provides less protection, and less long lasting protection.

Thanks for the correction. Now what is the name of the vaccine for overly-pedantic commenter?

Lets not heap abuse on McCarthy: that's pointless. She did suffer a tragedy: her kid does have a disorder (possibly not autism, by the way). When she started her ill-advised crusade, the Wakefield papers suggesting a link between autism and vaccines hadn't been retracted yet. And according to wikipedia, she hasn't made public statements against vaccinations since 2011.

Instead, blame the media for reporting on what celebrities think and junk science. They should have known better. They are the ones w

What the fuck is up with that anyway? When I was growing up, they wouldn't even let you in the school if you didn't have your immunization papers. I don't care if you are afraid of "toxins" and use Cherokee hair tampons, if you're not getting your kids their shots you're endangering them and everyone else's kids. That should be enough grounds for child services to decide that you're an unfit parent and remove your kids to protective custody. We need to stop coddling stupid bitches in this country.

Mexican kids tend to have at least as high vaccination uptake as US kids. (I say this based on personal experience as a primary care physician taking care of a population with lots of Mexican immigrants who keep their vaccination cards, and based on data you can Google easily: http://www.vaccinationnews.org... [vaccinationnews.org], and http://www.unicef.org/infobyco... [unicef.org] which shows Mexican DTP rates around 99%, compared to the United States, which is 93% by the third dose.)

So, I wouldn't look so strongly at Mexico, as I would at San Diego, which is the backyard of Dr Bob Sears and his Vaccine Book. He promulgates a non-evidence-based Alternative Schedule that more or less gives privileged white parents permission to be suspicious of the pro-science crowd. (See http://pediatrics.aappublicati... [aappublications.org] for cogent commentary on the same.)

With a panel of about 2000 patients, I've got more or less 0 vaccine refusers among my Mexican and Central American population, which correlates well with the Unicef data cited above.

It's much safer. Stock up on Doritos and Dr. Pepper and wait the epidemic out.

Pertussis is a big deal and, as usual, the media is Doing It Wrong. For most adults, pertussis is annoying (very annoying) but not life threatening. It is also rather contagious and worse, it is most contagious early on when one's symptoms are mild and non specific. So when you are sick, stay in the basement. Wash your hands. Communicate with the rest of the world via Slashdot.

For young children it can be fatal, hence the importance of immunizations.

What is pretty clear is that the primary immunization series works pretty well (not perfectly). Immunizations of adults doesn't work well at all. What TFA didn't make clear was how immunized the adults were. They would be up to date if they had received their primary children's series but no adult Dtap (typically given as part of a tetanus immunization, not directly 'for' pertussis). But we know that the pertussis component of Dtap wanes after five years. So even if you were technically up to date by tetanus standards, you'd be behind for pertussis.

We've known this for decades. What I can't figure out is why a pertussis only booster hasn't been marketed. We have the vaccine, we have much of the data. It would be fairly easy to do. (Insert favorite rant about the Medical Industrial Complex here.)

A: Yes. Pertussis, or whooping cough, can be prevented with vaccines. Before pertussis vaccines became widely available in the 1940s, about 200,000 children got sick with it each year in the US and about 9,000 died as a result of the infection. Now we see about 10,000–40,000 cases reported each year and unfortunately about 10–20 deaths.

Pertussis vaccines are recommended for people of all ages. Infants and children should get 5 doses of DTaP for maximum protection. A dose is given at 2, 4 and 6 months, at 15 through 18 months, and again at 4 through 6 years. A booster dose of Tdap is given to preteens at 11 or 12 years of age.

Any adolescents or adults who didn't get Tdap as a preteen should get one dose. Getting Tdap is especially important for pregnant women. It’s also important that those who care for infants are up-to-date with pertussis vaccination. You can get the Tdap booster dose no matter when you got your last regular tetanus booster shot (Td). Also, you need to get Tdap even if you were vaccinated as a child or have been sick with pertussis in the past.

Learn more about preventing pertussis.

car

Whooping cough can be deadly for babies. Learn how to protect them through vaccination. See this infographic.Q: Why is the focus on protecting infants from pertussis?

A: Infants are at greatest risk for getting pertussis and then having severe complications from it, including death. About half of infants younger than 1 year old who get pertussis are hospitalized, and 1 or 2 in 100 hospitalized infants die.

There are two strategies to protect infants until they're old enough to receive vaccines and build their immunity against this disease.

First, vaccinate pregnant women with Tdap during each pregnancy, preferably at 27 through 36 weeks. By getting Tdap during pregnancy, mothers build antibodies that are transferred to the newborn, likely providing protection against pertussis in early life, before the baby can start getting DTaP vaccines at 2 months old. Tdap also helps protect mothers during delivery, making them less likely to transmit pertussis to their infants.

Second, make sure everyone around the infant is immunized. This includes parents, siblings, grandparents (including those 65 years and older), other family members, babysitters, etc. They should be up-to-date with the age-appropriate vaccine (DTaP or Tdap) at least two weeks before coming into close contact with the infant. Unless pregnant, only one dose of Tdap is recommended in a lifetime.

These two strategies should reduce infection in infants, since health data have shown that, when the source of pertussis could be identified, mothers were responsible for 30-40% of infant infections and all household members were responsible for about 80% of infections.

It's also critical that healthcare professionals are up-to-date with a one-time Tdap booster dose, especially those who care for infants.

Learn more about infant complications.

Top of PageQ: Do pertussis vaccines protect for a lifetime? If I've had whooping cough, do I still need a pertussis booster?

A: Getting sick with pertussis or getting pertussis vaccines doesn't provide lifelong protection, which means you can still get pertussis and pass it onto infants.

Pertussis vaccines are effective, but not perfect. They typically offer high levels of protection within the first 2 years of getting vaccinated, but then protection decreases over time. This is known as waning immunity. Similarly, natural infection may also only protect you for a few years.

In general, DTaP vaccines are 80-90% effective. Among kids who get all 5 doses of DTaP on schedule, effectiveness is very high within the year following the 5th dose

Around here, you can educate them yourself by opening your own state approved school and following certain rules. That's what homeschooling looks like here. You can't just "teach them yourself". Obviously, things may differ in your jurisdiction.

I think there's enough creditable evidence out there to suggest that young children under the age of 3 shouldn't have any immunization because thier systems aren't developed enough to deal with the shots. But by 3 they should be required to be immunized before attending and public school. Also I this there should be mandated boosters in public middle and highschool. You don't want to follow the rules then you don't get the free education.

Then personal choices would not put other people at risk, only the people that opt out would take their chances.

This seems like no more a 'personal choice', than a choice to not pay taxes.

Or to run an unsecured computer on the internet, or open e-mail proxy, that spammers can abuse.

The thing is... a person's 'personal' choice to be vulnerable to a contagion will always put other people at risk, unless they have a 100% quarantine, since once you are infected, you have provided the contagion a place

Where is your freedom when you develop an immunity disorder and can't be vaccinated, and some muppet infects you because they chose to not be vaccinated? Where do your rights end and theirs begin? Not that you've thought this through in any depth, as that's some sort of socialist commie thing to do. BENGHAZI or something.

Are you sure? A few years ago when I was rather ill I went to a doctor who decided I needed a chest X-ray to rule out tuberculosis, which he described as (IIRC) "common" in San Francisco. I expressed surprise, and he said it was due to illegal immigration. Of course, it might have been due to illegal immigration from Honduras, Guatemala, etc., but most illegals around here are from Mexico.

Experience at a free clinic would be suggestive of issues faced by the poor and lower middle class in general. To really draw conclusions from experience, he would need to have worked in a free clinic far from immigrant populations and in a clinic (free or not) in a wealthy area.

Why are you assuming the physician in question worked exclusively at the free clinic? This is quite unlikely. I have known many physicians who worked rounds at free clinics in addition to their duties at other medical facilities in various metropolitan areas, but I cannot recall having known a physician who only did free clinic work for any prolonged period of time. I have seen a couple of cases where doctors who were very financially secure (not the normal "paying off medical school, dealing with other deb

"...and was speaking from personal experience."
This is a huge red flag. He probably is not a trained epidemiologist, and as such his observation bias is no different in that area then anyone else.

Nonsense. He knows what he sees in his work. He wasn't making an epidemiological statement, he was making an observational one: the TB cases he was seeing were disproportionately illegal immigrants. Observation is not necessarily "observational bias."

Of course, he wears a white coat so you assume is an expert in all things.

No, I just assume he's an expert on the characteristics of his patients and their diseases, because that's his job.

And you should learn to evaluate the methodology and statistics in a study instead of assuming the abstract is correct.

Also, you should reread it. It has more to do with closed population group in low income.

That said, it's irrelevant. We should immunizes everyone.

People can prattle on and how 'wrong' illegal immigration is bottom line, it happens. If something more the a review study should indicate it is largely due to illegal entry, is that enough not to vaccinate and disease that doesn't care about leg

I've read the referenced publication twice in its entirety. You are attempting to minimize the key point "census tracts with lower median incomes, more racial/ethnic minorities, and more immigrants had higher rates of pediatric tuberculosis" by separating the factors for your convenience. I never stated that illegal immigration was the only factor, but it is nonetheless intimately linked with the rate of transmission of tuberculosis. I'll leave it to you to consult additional studies (CDC, etc) that demonst

of the 621 people known to have come down with whooping cough in San Diego county, the vast majority (85 percent) were up to date on their immunizations.

Here's the problem with that statistic: If 90% of the people in San Diego county are up to date on their vaccinations, and the per capita of individuals was equal, then you'd end up with about 63 of the 621(or 90%) of whooping cough individuals as having their vaccinations. To truly see how well the whooping cough vaccination is working, you need to compare it to the percentage of total vaccinations. If the % is higher than the vaccinations total, you've got a problem, otherwise we can continue to blame un-vaccinated individuals as the problem.

To truly see how well the whooping cough vaccination is working, you need to compare it to the percentage of total vaccinations.

THIS. The reporting in TFA is potentially making a false inference.

If this is unclear, think about it this way: If 85% of the 621 infected have been vaccinated, that means that 528 were vaccinated, and 93 were not.

Now, consider a hypothetical population of 10,000 people. And suppose (for the sake of argument) 99% of them are vaccinated. That means that 9900 people are vaccinated, and only 100 people are not.

Look at those statistics again for infections. If 93 of unvaccinated people were infected, that would constitute 93% of the entire unvaccinated population. In comparison, 528 out of the other 9900 would only be 5.33%.

In this hypothetical 99% vaccinated scenario, going without vaccinations means you are over 17 TIMES more likely to get infected if you are unvaccinated.

I doubt we can assume a 99% fully vaccinated rate, but as long as that rate is greater than 85%, the vaccine has some apparent effect. To wit:

There was an outbreak of whooping cough in Australia a couple of years ago, my immunised ex-wife caught a dose. Turned out it was a new strain of whooping cough [google.com.au] the vaccination is still effective but not as effective as it was for the old strain. If the US vaccination rates haven't changed recently then I would put my money on it being the new Aussie strain.

Couldn't agree more. If someone has snuck across the border and evaded the established legal process to come here by doing so, that would make them an immigrant who has entered the country illegally. While it is technically correct to say they are "undocumented", it's also technically correct to say that Japan was "splashed" or "moistened" by that tsunami in 2011.

A baby born on US soil to a Mexican citizen in the US illegally enjoys automatic US citizenship, but it was established by the Supreme Court a few decades ago that being a child with US citizenship does NOT automatically convey a right to GROW UP on US soil unless at least one parent or legal guardian has US citizenship or residency. (I believe the Supreme Court's rationale was that a child needs a legal guardian, and since the constitution doesn't grant automatic citizenship to the PARENTS of US citizens, the child can't independently exercise his rights as a US citizen until he or she is legally an adult).

Under the best circumstances for the mother, her baby will be born in the US, get an official US birth certificate, then both will be deported to Mexico. 18 years later, the child can move to the US at will, but bringing his mother (or any other extended family member) will require demonstration of financial ability to support and sponsor the immigrant parent. In the end, all having an "anchor baby" really gives the mother is the ability to cut in front of other Mexican citizens and move to the front of the immigration line ahead of them.immigration status.

" I have an aversion to people taking from our country and giving nothing back."

You have to be careful with making statements like that.e.g.

do you ever buy from places that use aliens as cheap labor to keep prices low?do you pay every cent of tax you are supposed to? the Rich are bigger freeloaders than the aliens because they don't pay their fair share of personal tax and do their best to avoid it.Global companies do their level best to avoid paying any tax.

It depends on how many cases you expect. Smallpox has been eradicated worldwide, so a single case is considered an epidemic. Ebola is so rare and deadly that a small number is needed for it to be called an outbreak or an epidemic. Whooping cough is more common, but this recent outbreak is at a much higher rate than normal.